Sentences with phrase «claim science points»

How come it is always christian apologists that claim science points to an intelligent creator and not the scientific community?

Not exact matches

Why don't you just make a claim or tell me your point about Jesus and science?

A scientist once claimed to find Dinosaur soft tissue, therefore all science that points to an old Earth is invalid and The Bible is literally true.

Christians are then left pointing to sociological maladies to vindicate our claims or appealing to the authority of a «pure science» which doesn't exist; or in the case of «same sex marriage,» we're reduced to pleading for private exemptions from public «justice.»

The point is that science is merely man's OBSERVATIONS of the world around him > The Bible claims to be something more.

As neil degrasse tyson pointed out, each of our great mathematicians and scientists throughout the centuries reached their limit and declared God did it... only to have the next guy push though that barrier, reach their own limit... and claim the same... This lady has the benefit of history and science at her finger tips, and judging by her credentials is no stranger to the scientific process, and still fell into the same trap...

Actually, modern science put a lot more of effort into discrediting discoveries that point to validity of claims made by religion, than the opposite.

At least you'll be able to add it to your repertoire of «things to point to» to claim science is an «incorrect belief system».

Northrop observed such a confluence, and held that Whitehead and Berg - son differed only on one major point of doctrine: he alleges that, for Bergson, spatialization in science constitutes a falsification of experience, while he thinks this is not the case for Whitehead.30 There are two problems with this claim by Northrop.

But Topher, keep in mind that if God can bend scientific laws as He chooses, there is no point in using ANY science, including science you claim supports the Bible.

It's ironic because you said that creationist have no evidence to support their claims but you mentioned organizations that find such evidence And again their point is that history and science will not contradict the Bible

3 The obvious critical point to make of Whitehead here is to indicate that his statement that science is true for each percipient is to claim to know something of the experience, qua scientific, of each percipient, and hence to have admitted an element of transcendence into the very statement of the problem.

I no longer believe because I am done listening to people claim to have answers they don't have, it is dishonest, irresponsible, immoral and can be dangerous I am glad you trust science, to a point, but when science is not able to provide an answer you insert god and like I said, that is lazy.

Look, a cult of keeping a child at the breast until advanced age has become a trend among primarily white, educated, affluent women, the blogger is simply making a point that there is no concrete science to back - up the claims being made for the benefits.

Dellavalle points out that lack of ability to test the effect of UV tanning on cancer in a randomized control trial is «a primary advantage for the tanning industry, which claims that there is lack of true science behind cancer - causing claims.»

Others, like me, are convinced that no theoretical or empirical evidence exists for such a claim, and that a widespread belief in the existence of such a point of no return threatens to push ecological science and its application in the wrong direction.

The authors claim that most of the conservation science is missing the point when it comes to climate change.

He also maintains that Western science is more than simply Western, because it is universal, but this is precisely the claim which conservatives have made a point of rejecting: they do not see a tradition so obviously tied to the history of the West as a system of objective, neutral or universal truth.

We review published claims associated with our technical areas of research and point out false or misleading representations of science to help ensure public and commercial policies are guided by facts based on rigorous scientific exploration.

There is not much out there in the scientific world to date, however, to make the claim that healthier people are more spiritual, but the science that points to the benefits of having a spiritual life and outlook is compelling.

Gundry, while quick to point how stupid we are compared to those clever Asians who mill their rice, lacks the peer reviewed science to back up his fantastic claims.

Amid reports that overweight pupils underperform academically — data obtained from at least six studies by Scottish PHD student Anne Martin show that children who are obese at 11 achieve lower than average marks in maths, science and English at 16 — and findings that there is a higher incidence of serious childhood obesity in London than New York, figures like the London Health Commission's Lord Darzi are claiming that the issue is «at breaking point.»

While legally required to offer a public - school - equivalent education, there is an ongoing New York City investigation into practices at some schools in the highly insular ultra-Orthodox community, with claims that more than a few used by the Hasidic religious group prioritize religious studies to the point that many students graduating 12th grade are near ignorant when it comes to anything more than basic math, grammar, science or history, leaving them all but unemployable.

A more flawed piece would be quite a find, but, as the author resorts to claiming logical fallacy in Howey's «science»... let me point out the one which his entire thesis rests on:

[19, 20] But if, as the authors claim, «the science points to cats,» then it does so rather obliquely, an acknowledgement Jessup and Miller make begrudgingly:

But you didn't answer my point — so try again: If someone claims that the science is a hoax but in fact it turns out to very real and very impactful, what «accountability» should be applied?

We have now entered the Twilight Zone where climate scientists are equivalent to David Icke (claimed he was Jesus reincarnated at one point) and a «science paper» is up there with an episode of InfoWars.

He references this AMEG nonsense, presents it as valid science (although it is the furthest thing from), grossly exaggerates articles to make a point, and claims utter nonsense (6 °C by 2050, more than 100 % more than any credible institution predicts under any scenario) and never backs up his claims with numbers (especially his feedbacks, apart from the AMEG / methane stuff).

I am not going to stand up and support every point made in those references, firstly because I don't, secondly because I am not qualified and finally because the whole point of my initial post was to demonstrate that the side which claims to be on the side of the «science», is demonstrably uncritical of anything which supports their view.

Anyone who points to the claims of «an ice age beginning» back in the 70's as an excuse to dismiss the science of today is being very disingenuous, unethical and misleading, because the climate was undeniably cooling during the 70's although it was not understood at the time.

So, people do care when you are opposed to their point of view, it seems, so it is quite useful to show that I work with some of the top UK climate scientists (via Tyndall), that I am involve in climate policy modelling (and climate modelling via CIAS), so I don't get any patronising comments by anonymous people who claim I should be quiet because they «read the science» while I must be a PR guy if I want to engage with people with a different opinion to myself.

Similarly, and as discussed here, Matthew England's recent discovery of the «missing heat» — right or wrong — in the oceans followed years of his somewhat angry criticisms of climate sceptics rightly pointing out the missing heat, leading to their claims, rightly or wrongly that climate science had erred.

My point was that I see little to be gained in claiming the other side is nothing but oddballs, nutcases and loons, all with motivations having little to do with science.

«The messages of the two points outlined in the extract above are: (1) the claims about increases in frequency and intensity of extreme events are generally not supported by actual observations and, (2) official information about climate science is largely controlled by agencies through (a) funding choices for research and (b) by the carefullyselected (i.e. biased) authorship of reports such as the EPA Endangerment Finding and the National Climate Assessment.»

Is there even ONE SINGLE point that Oreskes can claim as her OWN, that isn't patently obviously utter drivel, motivated by her desire to have science dictated to by extreme statist ideology?

Many more of Monckton's claims — including others about snow cover and sea - ice — are being diligently examined against the peer - reviewed science — yet again — by SkepticalScience, which has begun a series looking at his debating points in detail.

But the abandonment by climate scientists of the need to verify their claims is at the heart of Darwall's belief that the science is the critically weak point of the «idea» of climate change.

But contrary to the Journal's claim that the EPA disavowed that finding because the agency had been «barraged by plaintiff attorneys and Hollywood celebrities,» it was actually changed after the EPA's scientific advisory board, which evaluates the agency's «use of science,» pointed out that the draft conclusion wasn't supported elsewhere in the report:

Albert Einstein Anyone claiming their point of view represents science, is a charlatan and a fraud.

The claim that 2014 was the hottest year in history shows that the global warming scare is not a high point in the history of science.

Haapala also pointed out how unscientific such scheming was — especially when perpetrated by those claiming that the «science is settled» and that humanity must promptly submit to a draconian UN «global warming» regime.

The only point I'm reasonably sure of is that you are claiming that climate science has destroyed the credibility of science in general.

My questions about a) Christy and Spencer are relevant to the points raised on this thread by Craig Loehle abourt conflicts of interest; b) My points and questions about you failing applying skepticism and scrutiny equally is also relevant to the whole point of your blog and claims about caring about the science and building bridges.

(See: Media Tipping Point: Houston Chronicle Reporter Reconsiders Science is «Settled» Claims!

One of the unfortunate side effects of which was that (and this is not necessarily your field's fault in the direct sense) every two - bit environmental activist, campaigner, and pressure group took it as license to fully politicize the science with naive and exaggerated claims about the «effects» of global warming (apparently it's responsible for everything), or where the «tipping point» was (30 years, no 20 years, no 10 years, etc.) or how quickly we could «de-carbonize» our economy (50 % reduction in 40 years, no 70 % in 30 years, no 90 % in 15 years).

The «consensus» is shot and the Medium has become the Message: all who claim there is a consensus of opinion pointing to humans as the cause of global are simply outing themselves as science pariahs.

The site to which you point is full of the standard attacks on science and individual scientists, including claims about plots to impose «world government».

The point was made to counter the claim by many in Climate Science that light is INSTANTLY transformed into thermal energy.

While environmental activists and some politicians claim «the debate is over» and call for immediate action to reduce man - made greenhouse gas emissions, others say the science points to only a very small human impact — too small to warrant concern — and the costs of trying to prevent global warming far exceed the benefits.

Matthew England's recent discovery of the «missing heat» â $» right or wrong â $» in the oceans followed years of his somewhat angry criticisms of climate sceptics rightly pointing out the missing heat, leading to their claims, rightly or wrongly that climate science had erred.